UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
|
|
- Barbara Hudson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION I.E.E. INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONICS & ENGINEERING, S.A. and IEE SENSING, INC., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Case No Hon. Gerald E. Rosen v. TK HOLDINGS INC. and TAKATA A.G., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on July 27, 2015 PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court I. INTRODUCTION At the conclusion of a January 5, 2015 settlement conference conducted by the Court, the parties reached a settlement encompassing this and a related action, I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A. v. TK Holdings Inc., Case No , and placed this settlement on the record. The parties then sought to reduce the terms of their agreement to writing, but this effort has reached an impasse. Accordingly, by motion filed on February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enforce a written settlement agreement that, in their view, embodies the terms of the parties settlement as reflected in
2 the statements of the parties and their counsel at the January 5, 2015 settlement hearing. As discussed below, the parties impasse in their effort to reduce their settlement agreement to writing turns upon two points of disagreement. First, Plaintiffs take issue with Defendants proposal to include a provision in the parties written settlement agreement calling for Defendants to withhold a portion of their $1.1 million settlement payment in accordance with the purported dictates of German tax law. Next, Plaintiffs object to Defendants effort to define the affiliates encompassed by the cross-licensing portion of the parties settlement to include both present and future affiliates of the settling parties. Through their present motion, Plaintiffs invite the Court to break this impasse by enforcing a settlement agreement that lacks the provisions put forward by Defendants concerning tax withholding and the licensing rights of future affiliates. In response, Defendants insist that the provisions they have proposed are consistent with the intent of the parties as expressed at the time of the January 5, 2015 settlement conference. Since Plaintiffs filed their present motion on February 17, 2015, the Court has convened two status conferences to address this motion, and has urged the parties to cooperatively resolve their differences as to the terms of their settlement. Unfortunately, the parties recently notified the Court that they remain at an impasse. 1 Thus, it has been 1 Most notably (and disappointingly), while the Court suggested at an April 1, 2015 status conference that the parties and their tax professionals should, at a minimum, seek to reach common ground as to the obligations Defendants face under German tax law when making their $1.1 million settlement payment and the opportunity for Plaintiffs to obtain reimbursement of at least a portion of any such required tax withholding, the Court was dismayed to learn at a subsequent June 1, 2015 status conference that the parties had made no such effort to identify and discuss much less narrow the scope of their differences as to this seemingly discrete 2
3 left to the Court to ascertain the terms of the parties settlement as to the two above-cited points of dispute, and the Court now turns to this task. II. ANALYSIS Before addressing the parties two specific points of disagreement as to the terms of their settlement, the Court first emphasizes what is not at issue in the present motion. In particular, the parties do not dispute that they reached an enforceable agreement at the January 5, 2015 settlement conference to resolve all of their claims in this suit and a related action, Case No Rather, the disagreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants is more limited: they differ only as to how certain terms of their acknowledged settlement should be memorialized in a written agreement. Importantly, neither side contends that this disagreement is indicative of a broader failure to achieve a meeting of the minds as to all material terms of a settlement, and neither side suggests that the Court s resolution of this dispute will somehow unravel the settlement reached by the parties. Accordingly, with this understanding of what is and is not at issue, the Court considers each of the two points of disagreement raised in Plaintiffs motion. First, Plaintiffs take issue with Defendants stated intention to withhold a portion of their $1.1 million settlement payment in order to comply with an obligation purportedly imposed on the paying Defendant, Takata A.G., under German tax law. 2 As and resolvable issue of German tax law. 2 At the January 5, 2015 settlement hearing, defense counsel represented that the settlement payment would be made either by Defendant Takata A.G., a German corporation, or by its parent Takata Corporation, a Japanese entity. (See 1/5/2015 Settlement Hearing Tr. at 7.) 3
4 Plaintiffs observe, Defendants counsel stated at the January 5, 2015 settlement hearing that Takata will pay I.E.E. 1.1 million United States [d]ollars, (1/5/2015 Settlement Hearing Tr. at 7), without in any way indicating that any taxes would be withheld from this payment. Defendants do not dispute this point, but they state that their tax advisors informed them after the January 5 hearing that the contemplated payment from a German corporation (Defendant Takata A.G.) to an entity in Luxembourg (Plaintiff I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A.) was subject to tax withholding under German law. (See Defendants 2/23/2015 Response, Ex. 1, Groombridge Decl. at 8-9.) In Defendants view, they have no choice but to comply with this obligation imposed on them by German law, (Defendants 2/23/2015 Response at 14), regardless of the parties failure to anticipate or address this legal obligation when they placed their settlement on the record. The Court agrees with Defendants that the parties silence on this issue when stating the terms of their settlement at the January 5, 2015 hearing cannot be construed as evidencing their tacit agreement that Defendants would both (i) pay the full $1.1 million settlement amount to Plaintiffs and (ii) shoulder the entire burden of the tax withholding obligation imposed by German law. Surely, it cannot be said that the parties failure to address the subject of tax withholding at the January 5 hearing reflected some sort of shared understanding or meeting of the minds as to how this matter should be handled. Rather, this silence was almost certainly attributable to the parties uniform failure to anticipate the possibility that Defendants settlement payment might be subject to 4
5 withholding. See McClusky v. Century Bank, FSB, No , 598 F. App x 383, 388 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2015) (finding it significant that the parties in that case had failed to make any reference to tax treatment and reporting issues in their settlement agreement, where it is common practice for parties to address these matters in settlement agreements when the parties have, in fact, agreed upon them ). Against this backdrop of mutual unawareness that Defendants payment would trigger a tax withholding obligation under German law, the Court must determine how this unanticipated obligation should be reflected in the parties settlement agreement. For two reasons, the Court finds that the parties settlement agreement should be construed as requiring Defendants to withhold a portion of their $1.1 million payment in accordance with German tax law. First, it is a settled principle of contract interpretation that the terms of an agreement should be presumed to comply with applicable law. See Walsh v. Schlecht, 429 U.S. 401, 408, 97 S. Ct. 679, 685 (1977) (observing that a general rule of construction presumes the legality and enforceability of contracts ); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts 203(a) ( [A]n interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part unreasonable, unlawful, or of no effect. ). In this case, Defendants state without contradiction that they are compelled under German tax law to withhold taxes from their $1.1 million settlement payment to Plaintiffs. 3 Consequently, if the 3 The Court emphasizes that it takes no position as to the accuracy of Defendants characterization of German tax law, and that it has made no effort to confirm the correctness of 5
6 parties settlement agreement is to comport with German law, Defendants payment obligation must incorporate the tax withholding duty imposed by this applicable law. Next, in a number of cases addressing analogous circumstances, the courts have found that a settlement agreement s silence with regard to tax consequences leaves the paying party free to withhold taxes from its settlement payment in accordance with applicable law. In International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Workers v. Hydro Automotive Structures North America, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-28, 2015 WL , at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2015), for example, the parties to a class action reached a settlement agreement that provide[d] for payments to individual class members in specified amounts, but did not address the tax consequences of these settlement payments. The settling defendants argued that they were bound by federal tax law to withhold taxes from their payments to the class members, while the plaintiffs contended that the defendants should be required to gross up these payments to ensure that the cash-in-hand for each class member equals the stated amount of the settlement payments recited in the parties settlement agreement. Hydro Automotive, 2015 WL , at *2. The court sided with the defendants in this dispute, finding that the silence in the parties settlement agreement with respect to tax consequences did not prohibit the Defendants assertion that they are obligated under German law to withhold taxes from their settlement payment to Plaintiffs. Rather, because Plaintiffs have failed to refute Defendants statement of their withholding obligation under German tax law, despite ample opportunity to do so, the Court accepts this statement as true for purposes of resolving the present motion. 6
7 Defendants from following federal law by deducting from any settlement payment the [federal taxes] Defendants believe are due, and from paying those withheld amounts to the appropriate governmental authority on behalf of the various class members receiving cash payments. Id. at *4. In so ruling, the court reasoned that [i]f the parties had meant to guarantee a particular amount of cash-in-hand [to each class member], they would have had to say so expressly, especially in a tax situation like this that would require grossing up settlement payments to ensure a cash-in-hand outcome. Id. at *3. The court further explained that while the defendants withholding may result in less cash on hand for particular class members, it was nonetheless true that each class member would still be receiving the full value of the settlement by having his or her applicable taxes withheld by the defendants and turned over to the taxing authority for that class member s benefit. Id. In contrast, if the defendants were compelled to increase their payments to class members in order to offset the amounts withheld from these payments in accordance with federal tax law, the court observed that this would require the Defendants to pay more than they agreed to pay in settlement, and would allow the class members to receive economic value beyond that promised in the Settlement Agreement. Id. (footnote omitted). Finally, the court explained that its ruling comported with the principle that each side has to bear the tax consequences and other third-party benefits and burdens that go along with implementing the Settlement Agreement. Id. at *3 n.3; see also Powertech Technology Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. 4: , 2014 WL , at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2014) (viewing the pertinent case law as establish[ing] that when 7
8 there is a withholding requirement imposed on one party by a government authority, that party must comply with the requirement as it applies to settlement payments, and that particularly in agreement[s] between... sophisticated parties, silence as to tax withholding leads to a presumption... that taxes are levied on the total settlement amount agreed upon (footnote with citations omitted)). Similarly, in Josifovich v. Secure Computing Corp., No , 2009 WL , at *1 (D.N.J. July 31, 2009), the parties agreed to a settlement of the plaintiff s state-law claims of unpaid commissions and employment discrimination, but their agreement was silent as to whether the settlement proceeds were subject to the withholding of employment taxes. Of particular relevance here, the plaintiff argued that if the defendant corporation withheld any such taxes from the settlement proceeds, the amount paid by the defendant should be equitably grossed up to offset this withholding. Josifovich, 2009 WL , at *6. The court rejected this contention, holding that it would not alter the terms of [the parties ] voluntary settlement agreement and require Defendant to pay more simply because Plaintiff now, after the close of negotiations, is dissatisfied with the anticipated tax consequences of her agreement. Id. The court further explained that for Plaintiff to receive an additional settlement, in excess of that agreed upon by the parties, when the negotiation was with full awareness of the fact that there would be tax consequences, would constitute a windfall to Plaintiff. Id. at *7. Returning to the present matter, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the above-cited decisions, and concludes in accordance with this case law that Defendants 8
9 may comply with the withholding requirements of German tax law without grossing up their payment to Plaintiffs to account for and offset this tax withholding. As the courts have recognized, the withholding of taxes is a natural and wholly foreseeable consequence of a payment made by one party to another pursuant to a settlement agreement, see McClusky, 598 F. App x at 388, and the parties here were free to allocate this withholding burden among themselves as they negotiated their settlement. Having failed to address this issue, the parties are subject to the presumption that each side has to bear the tax consequences attendant to the performance of their obligations under the settlement agreement. Hydro Automotive, 2015 WL , at *3 n.3. Although Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants should simply pay the entire $1.1 million settlement amount and leave it to Plaintiffs to fulfill any obligations imposed by the pertinent taxing authorities, (see Plaintiffs 2/17/2015 Motion, Br. in Support at 3), Defendants state without contradiction that this proposed course of action would not comport with German law, and that they have no choice but to withhold taxes from their settlement payment. Thus, if Defendants were required to pay the full $1.1 million settlement amount to Plaintiffs and also make the payment demanded by the German taxing authorities, this would result in payments by Defendants in excess of the $1.1 million figure they agreed to in the parties settlement. Moreover, Plaintiffs would obtain both the full value of Defendants $1.1 million settlement payment and the economic benefit derived from Defendants satisfaction of the tax obligation owed by the parties to the German taxing 9
10 authorities as a result of their agreed-upon settlement transaction. 4 As observed in above-cited cases, silence in a settlement agreement as to the tax consequences of payments surely does not warrant such a reapportionment of the parties benefits and burdens under their agreement. Rather, if Plaintiffs wished to ensure that they would receive a full $1.1 million settlement payment without regard to any tax consequences of the parties agreed-upon transaction, they should have negotiated for such a term in the parties settlement agreement. Because they did not, the Court declines to alter the terms of a settlement reached in hard-fought, arms-length negotiations among sophisticated parties, each of which was represented by highly skilled counsel and had ample opportunity to consider the tax consequences of the opposing party s settlement proposals. By resort to the principles articulated in the pertinent case law, the Court construes the parties settlement here as calling for Defendants to withhold taxes from their $1.1 million payment to Plaintiffs in accordance with German tax law, without any obligation for Defendants to gross up this payment to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the full $1.1 million settlement amount. 5 4 The Court does not profess to know how the German tax system operates, but presumes that some or all of the amount withheld by Defendants and paid to the German tax authorities would be credited toward an obligation that Plaintiffs otherwise would owe under German tax law as the recipient of a settlement payment made by the German defendant, Takata A.G. 5 In their response to Plaintiffs present motion, Defendants state that the parties will likely be able to achieve a reduction in the tax withholding rate mandated under German law by cooperat[ing] in seeking the benefit of a tax treaty between Germany and Luxembourg. (Defendants 2/23/2015 Response at 8.) While the Court again expresses no view as to what sorts of reductions or refunds might be available under the applicable tax laws and treaties, it strongly urges the parties to fully cooperate with each other in pursuing any such available tax 10
11 The remaining point of dispute among the parties as to the terms of their settlement agreement concerns the scope of the cross-licensing arrangement set forth in this agreement. At the January 5, 2015 settlement hearing, defense counsel stated that the parties agreement called for each side to grant the other a worldwide [non-]exclusive paid up license to certain specified families of patents, and that [t]here will be no right to sub-license except to affiliates of the parties. (1/5/2015 Settlement Hearing Tr. at 6-7.) In Plaintiffs view, this language dictates that only existing affiliates of the parties should be eligible to participate in the licensing arrangement granted under the parties settlement, while Defendants argue that the statements made at January 5 hearing disclose the shared intent of the parties to include future affiliates in this licensing arrangement. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have the better of the argument on this point. While Defendants suggest that the parties could have expressly specified that their licensing arrangement was limited to existing or present affiliates if that was their true intention, the Court fails to see why an unadorned reference to affiliates should be understood as referring to anything other than the parties existing affiliates. Indeed, as Defendants themselves recognize, if the reference to affiliates at the January 5 settlement hearing is construed as encompassing both present and future affiliates, it is necessary to incorporate a change of control provision into the parties agreement, in order to prevent a current competitor of one or both parties from securing license rights relief, and it views such cooperation as an implicit obligation owed by the parties under their settlement agreement. 11
12 under the settlement agreement by becoming affiliated with one of the parties at some future date. (See Defendants 2/23/2015 Response at 11 (explaining why such a change of control provision is necessary under Defendants reading of the parties settlement as encompassing both present and future affiliates).) This need to inject still another provision into the parties settlement agreement a term that was nowhere mentioned, or even alluded to, at the January 5 settlement hearing in order to avoid the unintended consequences of Defendants preferred understanding of the parties settlement is a strong indication that this understanding is incorrect. Defendants next contend that the extension of the parties cross-licensing arrangement to future affiliates is inherent in the forward-looking nature of this arrangement. (See Defendants 2/23/2015 Response at 9 (quoting 1/5/2015 Settlement Hearing Tr. at 7).) Yet, the reference at the January 5 settlement hearing to a forwardlooking licensing arrangement was meant only to contrast this arrangement with the backward-looking release of the infringement claims asserted by the parties in this litigation. (See 1/5/2015 Settlement Hearing Tr. at 7.) A licensing arrangement offered as part of the settlement of patent litigation will almost invariably be forward-looking in this sense, but Defendants suggest no reason why the scope of such an arrangement should ordinarily be understood, unless the parties expressly say otherwise, as encompassing altogether separate entities that become affiliated with a party at some point in the indefinite future. Nor have Defendants pointed to any sort of industry standard, course of dealings, or conventional usage in the drafting of technology or patent 12
13 licensing agreements that would support their preferred construction of the parties licensing arrangement as extending to future affiliates. Absent any such basis for adopting Defendants proposed reading of the settlement terms placed on the record at the January 5 hearing, the Court concludes that the reference to affiliates at the hearing was meant to include only those entities that fit this description at the time of the hearing namely, the parties existing affiliates. 6 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs February 17, 2015 motion to enforce settlement agreement (docket #526) is GRANTED IN PART, in accordance with the rulings in this opinion and order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this opinion and order, the parties shall finalize and execute a settlement agreement that comports with the terms set forth at the January 5, 2015 settlement hearing and the Court s rulings in the present opinion and order. Upon the execution of this settlement agreement, the parties shall promptly submit appropriate stipulated proposed orders to the Court providing for the dismissal of the above-captioned suit and Case No s/gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court 6 In light of this conclusion, the change of control provision proposed by Defendants is unnecessary to the parties settlement agreement. 13
14 Dated: July 27, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/julie Owens Case Manager, (313)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:06-cv-13589-GER-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/09 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: DOUGLAS P. RUSSELL and TRACY E. RUSSELL, Case No. 06-13589
More informationCase 2:97-cv-03496-DRD-JAD 2:97 cv O3496 DRD JAD Document 546 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: Page D: 10382
Case 2:97-cv-03496-DRD-JAD 2:97 cv O3496 DRD JAD Document 546 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: Page D: 10382 CHAMBERS OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION In re: JOSEPH R. O LONE, Case No.: 3:00-bk-5003-JAF Debtor. Chapter 7 / FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation;
More information2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
More information2:11-cv-12787-GER-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 08/05/13 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 383 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:11-cv-12787-GER-MKM Doc # 49 Filed 08/05/13 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 383 STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 11-12787
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS TRICORE REFERENCE LABORATORIES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN RE: SKECHERS TONING SHOE : CASE: 3:11-md-02308-TBR PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION : : MDL No.: 2308
Case 3:11-md-02308-TBR-LLK Document 68 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1322 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTIRCT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION IN RE: SKECHERS TONING SHOE : CASE: 3:11-md-02308-TBR
More information5:05-cv-60112-JCO-SDP Doc # 37 Filed 06/09/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 457 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
5:05-cv-60112-JCO-SDP Doc # 37 Filed 06/09/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 457 PLANTE & MORAN CRESA, L.L.C., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 05-60112
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION KIMBERLY D. BOVA, WILLIAM L. BOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civil
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:13-cv-00646-ABC-PLA Document 135 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2352 Present: The Honorable Audrey B. Collins Angela Bridges Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present
More informationDetermining Tax Liability Under Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code
Determining Tax Liability Under Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code ) provides the means by which a debtor or trustee in bankruptcy may seek a determination
More informationCase 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
More informationCase: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid>
Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39
More informationDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 28, 2012 CBCA 2453, 2560 PRIMETECH, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 28, 2012 CBCA 2453, 2560 PRIMETECH, v. Appellant, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. Chizoma Onyems, President of Primetech, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, appearing for
More informationv. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More information19:13-2.1 Who may file
CHAPTER 13 SCOPE OF NEGOTIATIONS PROCEEDINGS Authority N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4d, 34:13A-11 and 34:13A-27. SOURCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE R.2011 d.238, effective August 11, 2011. See: 43 N.J.R. 1189(a), 43 N.J.R.
More informationFEATURE ARTICLES. Closing Adjustment Provisions in M&A Transactions: Avoiding Common Disputes
Page 3 FEATURE ARTICLES Closing Adjustment Provisions in M&A Transactions: Avoiding Common Disputes By Kevin R. Shannon and Michael K. Reilly 1 In most M&A transactions, there is a delay (sometimes significant)
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., ) CASE NO. 1:10
More informationCourtroom: 19 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO City and County Building, Room 256 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: RAYMOND AND SALLY MILLER, ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all
More information4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL BUSSARD, v. Plaintiff, SHERMETA, ADAMS AND VON ALLMEN,
More informationSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ( Agreement ) is made and entered into by and between Cheryl Coryea ( Coryea or Plaintiff ), and Rochester Independent School District
More informationCase 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Case 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION SARAH M. STALVEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-206
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[Cite as Wright v. Miami Valley Hosp., 2013-Ohio-4233.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOBBIE WRIGHT : : Appellate Case No. 25542 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial
More informationCase 1:06-cv-22273-SH Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/07 13:02:36 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:06-cv-22273-SH Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/07 13:02:36 Page 1 LAWRENCE KATT, M.D., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationPLAINTIFF S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
DOCKET NO. PJR CV-02-0817228 SUPERIOR COURT DAVID A. WILSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD V. AT HARTFORD THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY NOVEMBER 20,2002 PLAINTIFF
More informationCase 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., ) ) No: 06-701-MJR-DGW Plaintiffs,
More information2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
More informationCase 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE ROBERT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MELEA LIMITED, a Gibraltar corporation, and PLASTIC MOLDED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Civil No.
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision
More informationInsurance Producer Agreement
Insurance Producer Agreement Section 1 - Producer s Authority The Producer shall periodically submit risks to the Company for its consideration as authorized by the Company. These risks shall be located
More informationDefendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant
Case 1:08-cv-00623-RJA-JJM Document 170 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT a/s/o Sherry Demrick, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division In the Case of: Capitol House Nursing and Rehab Center (CCN: 19-5476, Petitioner, - v. Centers for Medicare &
More informationCase 3:04-cv-01544-DJS Document 42 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Case 304-cv-01544-DJS Document 42 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ALFONZO SANFORD, v. Plaintiff, ALCOHOL AND DRUG RECOVERY CENTERS, INC., Defendant. No.
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Sheboygan County: ANGELA W. SUTKIEWICZ, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 30, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationSTATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY DIVISION OF MORTGAGE LENDING * * * STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY DIVISION OF MORTGAGE LENDING In re: J.H.S. Moxie Corp., and Jacqueline O Shaughnessy, Respondent. * * * STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 STIPULATED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 15-10374-FDS ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) APPLE, INC.; ELPIDA
More informationHow To Resolve A Fee Dispute In A Personal Injury Action In N.Y.S.A.U.S
Case 3:10-cv-00559-MAD-DEP Document 73 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMESE M. VARGA, Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. 3:10-CV-0559 (MAD/DEP)
More information2 of 8 10/18/2012 1:12 PM
2 of 8 10/18/2012 1:12 PM Exhibit 10.11 EXECUTION COPY SALARIED EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT This SALARIED EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) is made on the 22nd day of
More informationClosing Adjustment Provisions in M&A Transactions: Avoiding Common Disputes
Closing Adjustment Provisions in M&A Transactions: Avoiding Common Disputes Summer 2010 Kevin R. Shannon and Michael K. Reilly are partners in the Wilmington, Delaware law firm of Potter Anderson & Corroon
More informationORDER GRANTING TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY / HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Pulitano v. Thayer St. Associates, Inc., No. 407-9-06 Wmcv (Wesley, J., Oct. 23, 2009) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy
More informationCASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation Case No. 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CATHERINE HOWELL, et al. Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al. Defendants Civil No. L-04-1494 MEMORANDUM This is a proposed
More informationCase 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
More informationCase 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DR. MARC L. KOZAM * d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE, et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. CIVIL
More informationCase: 1:11-cv-00375-DAP Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 111-cv-00375-DAP Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID # 11cv0375a-ord(jurisdiction).wpd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION C.B. FLEET COMPANY, INC.,
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationCase4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06. No. 12-1887 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06 No. 12-1887 ARTHUR HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
More informationCase 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6
Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6 November 6, 2013 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 325 West "F" Street, San Diego, California 92101-6991
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF DECEMBER 12, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS In re: ) ) LARRY RAY BEESON, ) Case No. 01-42214 ) Chapter 13 Debtor. ) ) ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF DECEMBER
More information13-22840-rdd Doc 1181 Filed 08/10/15 Entered 08/10/15 11:09:58 Main Document Pg 1 of 7
Pg 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x In re: Chapter 11 SOUND SHORE MEDICAL CENTER OF WESTCHESTER, et al.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00066-HL Document 136 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ex rel. GLENN F. NICHOLS
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 1
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically on January 28, 2009, which
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division NOTICE OF MOTION
tr. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division In re: PATHNET OPERATING, INC., Case No. 0-2266-SSM DEBTOR Chapter 7 GORDON P. PEYTON, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR PATHNET
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Defendant.
CASE 0:14-cv-00062-PAM-JSM Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Caleb Trainor and Isaac Trainor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT BENEDETTO ROSSI and SILVIA ROSSI v. C.A. No. 96-1295 AC&S, INC., et al. LEONARD S. MACAIONE and LOIS G. MACAIONE v. C.A.
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).
More informationHow To Get Out Of A Policy With Great Southern Insurance Company
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION In re GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE ) MDL Docket No. 1214 COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ) (All Cases) ) SUMMARY (PUBLICATION)
More informationFOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. In re Case No. 13-23483 JANICE RENEE PUGH, Chapter 13 Debtor.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN In re Case No. 13-23483 JANICE RENEE PUGH, Chapter 13 Debtor. MEMORANDUM DECISION ON DEBTOR S OBJECTION TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE S MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCase: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNIQUE PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, LTD., ) Case No. 5:10-CV-1912 )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ENTRY ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO CAP DAMAGES
FULMORE v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CARL S. FULMORE, Plaintiff, v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
More informationCase 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. RICK
More informationTHE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS
THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS TOPIC: Multiple Representations; Aggregate Settlements; Advance
More informationCase 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x EDWARD ZYBURO, on behalf of himself and all
More informationl) J if ORDER GRANTING CLASS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE CLASS SETTLEMENT FUND
Case 1:11-cv-08331-CM Document 81 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 5 Case 1:11-cv-08331-CM Document 78-1 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT NEW YORK PAUL SHAPIRO, on behalf
More informationADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency administratively to assess civil penalties
More information8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. and KIEWIT CORPORATION, ATSER, LP,
More informationCase 1:11-cv-01918-LGS Document 151 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 7 : : : : :
Case 111-cv-01918-LGS Document 151 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- 6/8/15 X In re SHENGDATECH,
More informationSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement (hereafter Agreement ) is entered into by
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (hereafter Agreement is entered into by and between the American Academy of Actuaries (the Academy and Bruce D. Schobel ( Mr. Schobel. The Academy and Mr.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN RE: RONALD J. GRABOWSKI TRENNA R. GRABOWSKI Debtor(s). In Proceedings Under Chapter 11 Case No. 01-40801 RONALD J. GRABOWSKI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION 2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: Specialty Products Holdings Corp., et al. Bankruptcy No. 10-11780 Debtor(s) 1 Chapter 11 (Jointly Administered) Related to Doc.
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationThe Federal Circuit Affirms a Court of Federal Claims Decision Dismissing Foreign Tax Credit Refund Claims as Untimely
Tax Controversy Services IRS Insights In this issue: The Federal Circuit Affirms a Court of Federal Claims Decision Dismissing Foreign Tax Credit Refund Claims as Untimely... 1 The Court of Federal Claims
More information2:12-cv-12284-GCS-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 02/26/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 687 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cv-12284-GCS-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 02/26/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 687 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARY C. VANDENHEEDE, vs. Plaintiff, FRANK B. VECCHIO, individually
More informationCOMMENTARY. California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos?
May 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos? As explained in a recent Commentary (available at http://www.jonesday.com/navigating_treacherous_
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00421-MJP Document 40 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 6
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 KENNETH WRIGHT, CASE NO. C- MJP v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO
More informationTEXTURA AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD ACN 160 777 088 ( Textura ) CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE
TEXTURA AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD ACN 160 777 088 ( Textura ) CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE Welcome to the Textura Construction Payment Management ( CPM ) System. By clicking
More informationINDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT (Between Broker and Licensee)
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT (Between Broker and Licensee) This Independent Contractor Agreement ( Agreement ), is made between Realtyka LLC ( Broker ), operating under the assumed name Real and (
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
More informationTITLE 102 PROCEDURAL RULE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW SERIES 1 RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
TITLE 102 PROCEDURAL RULE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW SERIES 1 RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 102-1-1. General. 1.1. Scope. -- This procedural rule is intended to set forth the procedures for
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Tucker, J. October, 2008. Presently before this Court are Plaintiff s Motion to Remand to State Court and
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC C. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION DELAWARE TITLE LOANS, INC. AND S. MICHAEL GRAY, Defendants. NO. 08-3322 MEMORANDUM
More informationTkaczyk v 337 E. 62nd LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31522(U) August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160264/2013 Judge: Cynthia S.
Tkaczyk v 337 E. 62nd LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31522(U) August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160264/2013 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationCase3:12-cv-05980-CRB Document265 Filed07/20/15 Page2 of 12
Case:-cv-00-CRB Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 0 IN RE HP SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All Actions MASTER
More informationMatter of Marcos Victor ORDAZ-Gonzalez, Respondent
Matter of Marcos Victor ORDAZ-Gonzalez, Respondent Decided July 24, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A notice to appear that was served
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE POSSESSION ) AND CONTROL OF THE COMMISSIONER ) OF BANKS AND REAL ESTATE OF ) Case No.: 00 CH 05905
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0347n.06. No. 12-1850 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0347n.06 No. 12-1850 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TOWN & COUNTRY SALIDA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ' PENINSULA ADVISORS, LLC and AlP RESORT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. C. A. No. 0-489-LPS FAIRSTAR RESOURCES LTD., Defendant. i J MEMORANDUM
More informationCase: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION BUT NOT PRINT PUBLICATION
Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 14 day of October, 2008. ROBERT E. NUGENT UNITED STATES CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION
More informationResidential Mortgage Lender/Servicer Claim Abuse
Residential Mortgage Lender/Servicer Claim Abuse By Patrick M. Mosley, Esq. Law Clerk to Hon. Catherine Peek McEwen Representative Cases I. In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2008): Debtor filed
More information